Goldvasser v. Port Authority

168 A.D.2d 484, 563 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15410
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 10, 1990
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 168 A.D.2d 484 (Goldvasser v. Port Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Goldvasser v. Port Authority, 168 A.D.2d 484, 563 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15410 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Di Tucci, J.), entered March 13, 1989, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $50,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We find unpersuasive the defendant’s contention that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of liability against it. The standard to be applied in determining if a prima facie case has been made out is "whether there was any rational basis on which a jury could have found for plaintiffs, the plaintiffs being entitled to every favorable inference which could reasonably be drawn from the evidence submitted by them” (Rhabb v New York City Hous. Auth., 41 NY2d 200, 202). Based on our review of the record, we find that there was sufficient proof for a jury to conclude that the defect complained of existed for such a period of time that knowledge of it should have been acquired by the defendant with the exercise of reasonable care. Thus, the jury could find that the defendant possessed constructive notice of a defective condition which was a proximate cause of the accident (see, Batton v Elghanayan, 43 NY2d 898).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining claims of error and find them to be either without merit or harmless under the circumstances presented. Lawrence, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Zablow v. DiSavino
22 A.D.3d 748 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
168 A.D.2d 484, 563 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldvasser-v-port-authority-nyappdiv-1990.